Supporting CSO Networks: Funders' Guide PDF

**Supporting CSO Networks** **What funders need to know** Enthusiasm for working with networks Sector level response to recognition of complexity and open systems *"Sector level response to the increasingly complex, interconnected, and networked world we live in, and the desire and need to harne...

**Supporting CSO Networks** **What funders need to know** Enthusiasm for working with networks Sector level response to recognition of complexity and open systems *"Sector level response to the increasingly complex, interconnected, and networked world we live in, and the desire and need to harness this for collective action around shared purpose or interests (Taschereau & Bolger, 2007; Scearce, 2011). KTp1* Influence on ecosystem Wider reach -- saves on time Confusion and conflation *The term 'network' is often used to describe a broad range of collaborative structures such as coalitions, alliances and other partnership structures seeking to advance change collectively, The term can often be conflated with other social change approaches, such as movements or movement-building* But tend to treat them as normal grantee Big mistake -- disappointment when do not live up to expectations *Include TLMI?* **Critical differences** [Purpose / Mission ] Very distinct roles - Advocacy, coalition-building - Capacity strengthening -- learning and exchange - Channelling donor funding to members - Coordinating service delivery - Representation Tension between roles -- not mutually inclusive Completely different skills sets and external relationships. Different organisational types, therefore different set capacities needed. [Identity, mindset and structure] Secretariat -- members -- who does the work? Life-cycle -- informal/voluntary; hosted by member; rotated between members; independent secretariat. As secretariat becomes stronger, real risk that networking can diminish Often set up with intentions for members to do the work, but if successful and grow, then secretariat takes over more as members too busy. Members can be consumers, passengers, rather than producers. Abdicate to network Can lead to secretariat becoming implementor and taking resources meant for members. Independent NGO, not coordinator of members *potential for disconnect between members and the coordinating body, which, from the examples shared, seemed a particular challenge among (some) larger networks or umbrella groups operating at global or regional levels.29* *Wider examples of dissatisfaction among members with Secretariat bodies were also highlighted, ranging from critical questions around the roles they undertook, grievances around the size of Secretariat staff teams; that is, perceptions that Secretariat were getting 'too big' or 'doing' too much, without the buy-in or engagement of members* Registration - "*civil society networks often are encouraged to create formal association structures and to register legally because these are thought to be hallmarks of progress (and they are easier to fund)" (p.13) - to be more complex in practice 33* Plastrik et al (2014) notion that remaining in a hub-and-spoke configuration would limit network growth and sustainability. [Leadership and culture] Needs network mindset *Several examples pinpointed the extent to which network culture or mindset (or indeed lack of it) permeates through all aspects of a network and acts as a key driver in how it operates, approaches its relationships, and defines and navigates its unique role or purpose as a network. P27* *Leadership was highlighted as a key determinant of culture: that is, who is setting the tone? Are they inclusive, participatory, collaborative? Are they applying that network mindset?* *28* Depends on role -- advocacy focused often appoint activist, who is not wanting to coordinate and wait for collaboration. *network leaders were often ill-equipped, or lacked sufficient training, in skills such as collective or distributed leadership, participatory approaches, or consensus building 28* *ability of network leaders to approach the work in ways that builds strategic alignment and collective ownership. The findings suggest that engagement and ownership is heavily influenced by how these leaders approach collaboration and relationship-building, and the extent to which network leaders are helping to solve the problems of members, adding value to their wider efforts, as opposed to being more extractive, or reaching out only when they need or want something from the members 29* *network leadership capacity was a common issue that emerged, requiring a unique set of skills unlike those of a traditional organisational leadership model, for example, a focus on relationships, listening, mobilising membership, and able to navigate tensions and conflict between members (Ehrlichman, 2021).38* [Power and decision-making] Usually considerable diversity and power differential amongst membership -- international-national; strong weak; size, spare capacity; *Formalised network structures also run the risk of having larger CSOs dominate the agenda or leadership of a network (Ashman and Luca Sugawara, 2013), drawing parallels with the impact differences in resource levels, operational capacity, and political clout highlighted by Brinkerhoff (1999).* What if funder on the board? Changes the identity completely? *Funders' money can be a powerful source of control within a network's development and a number of deliberate actions are needed from funders involved directly in networks (as funders and members of the network) to mitigate this power, intentionality dilute their power over time (see Plastrik et al, 2014, p.76).* [Governance] Different models -- AGM, 2 bodies Member governed: self/conflict interest Selection of board: Who else is on board -- non-members with specific skills competency-based or representational; Individual or institutional - elected as representatives to defend interests, but can only work effectively if give up primary organisational interests in favour of the network. Network cannot function as means to organisational end. Relationship with secretariat? *"In these relationships the individual person, rather than the institution who they may represent, is the primary agent. For those of us working inside activity focused networks, this cannot be overstated. Personal relations make or break the work" (Church et al, 2002, p.22).* *Ehrlichman (2021) recognises that this mindset shift -- which centres on the idea that the shared purpose is placed at the centre of the ecosystem (in terms of strategy), not your organisation -- can take time for some; "For many people, it feels natural to work relationally, through networks. For others who have worked exclusively in hierarchical organizations their whole lives, shifting into a network mindset can take some time, given how it contrasts with Western assumptions of how change happens through deliberate planning and control" (p.39).* *shared were experiences of a typical pattern where more dominant members -- those who are stronger, have more financial resources -- tend to take on those roles, furthering their power within a network; 31* *Competition and conflict of interest also emerged as challenges at a governance and decision-making level. The typical make up of network boards (representing senior members of the member group) demonstrated inherent conflict of interests when it came to resourcing and positioning of the network vs the organisation 32* [Strategy] Even more influenced by changes in external environment -- what able to do, income etc. Have to adapt even quicker [MEL Performance management] Even harder to attribute change -- one step further removed Change can take even longer as goes through members/ecosystem *need for network leaders and coordinating bodies to demonstrate value add to members also emerged as a critical indicator of success* *greater competition for funding, the reality that more networks exist than before, and an increased demand for people's time. There was also a dynamic described by Informant 5 that despite people's best intentions, networks typically are peripheral to most people's day jobs, and therefore is often the first thing to be dropped, even though people recognise the inherent value of networks/networking.30* [Income/Funding] Dependent on aid system Member fees usually come from 100% funded members. Hard to prove value add *challenging nature of resourcing for networks, with funders often most interested in funding direct outcomes, which are at odds with the nature and core purposes of most networks. Siloed funding streams, focused on a particular issue, also raises challenges for networks, who can find themselves respond to donor priorities more than member priorities. 32* *how much is enough resourcing for a network to add greatest value to the collective efforts without sparking tensions between the coordinating body and individual members? Again, this is highly contextual and subjective, but likely also requires greater self-reflection around internal biases, and challenging of assumptions, from various stakeholders involved, the membership, the secretariat or coordination bodies, and from donors.* *This also raises the question of sustainability 33* **Implications for Grant-making** Grant-making supports institutional form, rather than networking process itself Other roles too *These examples demonstrate many of the roles foundations can play in networks, outlined by Scearce (2011), including "Catalyst", "Sponsor", "Assessor", "Coach" 36.* Avoid using them for your own funding purposes. Real potential for harm if encourage them to become local grant-makers. *Donors should be careful and mindful of the impact its funding has on networks, particularly in relation to sub-granting* Fund for their advocacy role especially. Only comparative advantage is in advocacy. Often not specifically skilled in CB. *Core, long term, flexible funding plays a critical role in cultivating capacity and effectiveness within networks, allowing space for network principles to be applied. This will enable the conditions for trust, relationship building and building of culture and shared purpose, both within the network and between the network and grantee. Greater donor-donor advocacy is needed to put this principle into action p40* Fund as one part of wider systems change, not isolated. Invest in network weaving, holding space. If push for quick, measurable results, will encourage network into projects and into competition with members. No net gain to sector. *A greater ecosystem lens is needed, to ensure support to networks is not made in a vacuum and that support to networks coordinations do not ignore member level efforts (critical to sustaining the network and minimising conflict/competition). 40* Adjust expectations -- results longer. Donors interested in networks, but cannot expect fast results. *Despite network principles being understood (e.g. a focus on culture, trust, relationships), there is overwhelming feeling and experience that donors are reluctant to invest in that, and instead want to see tangible outcomes.35* *readjust what's expected of networks in terms of demonstration of impact, particularly in early few years of a network's existence, which is more about bringing people together, building the vision, and culture than delivering tangible results.* Needs different set of assessment questions Different M&E framework -- yet use same forms and sets of questions. See Malawi CSO networks (relationships, R and R) Morrissey (2000 quoted by McGee and Norton 2000:68) has identified a useful structure of indicators: 1. *process indicators* (who participates, at what level and with what capacity); 2. *developmental indicators* (how have different capacities and relationships been built by the participation); and, 3. *impact indicators* (how the participation has impacted the policy itself). *Further internal reflection is also needed within donors around its own evaluation and reporting expectations, reassessing what outcomes are reasonable to expect from networks, particularly in the short term 41* i. **Representational indicators** (to what extent do the CSO networks represent an 'authentic' voice of civil society?) ii. **Relationship indicators** (how have CSO networks related to key decision-making processes and how have these relationships been built? iii. **Results indicators** (what has changed that can plausibly associated with the existence and activities of CSO networks? How has this contributed to poverty reduction, pro-poor expenditures, and economic growth strategies?) **Implications for supporting capacity strengthening** Where are they in network life cycle KT p12 -13 Invest in identity and mindset *powerful nature of investments in exercises around network identity, to challenge assumptions internally and build greater engagement and buy in of members through such a process. In contrast, Informant B was unable to reflect upon any tailored support for network development purposes.* *We know from the literature (Ehrlichman, 2021; Meehan and Reinelt; 2012; Scearce, 2011) that a network mindset informs all aspects of a given network, creating ripples through the network and the wider ecosystem (Meehan and Reinelt, 2012). The experiences from research informants appear to confirm this, highlighting the value of intentional efforts to cultivate or strengthen this mindset, both within networks themselves but also as a mindset shift for other actors (including donors) in working as part of a wider ecosystem. We know from the literature (Ehrlichman, 2021; Meehan and Reinelt; 2012; Scearce, 2011) that a network mindset informs all aspects of a given network, creating ripples through the network and the wider ecosystem (Meehan and Reinelt, 2012). The experiences from research informants appear to confirm this, highlighting the value of intentional efforts to cultivate or strengthen this mindset, both within networks themselves but also as a mindset shift for other actors (including donors) in working as part of a wider ecosystem.38* Work on secretariat-member relationships -- glue. Mindset *Building the culture and network mindset was often highlighted as being labour and time-intensive, requiring high levels of intentionality and a participatory mindset and approach. Informants observed that the often intangible, abstract nature of such efforts raised additional tensions when interacting with donors wanting to see short term, tangible results. However, at a network level, research informants described the extent to which early investment in culture paid off; allowing for more effective, credible, and sustainable networks in the long run, as well as mitigating against future tensions with or among members 27* Focus on making difficult strategy choices *opportunities to invest in and seed reflection exercises within networks around network strategy, value add, identity and culture and trust 41* Develop leadership skills for collaboration. Different skills set *The critical role of network leadership (at various levels) was highlighted from informants as being a key driver of network mindset and culture, with network leadership emerged as a key area in which donors could play an added value role in terms of cultivating network capacity.p38* *need for more tailored leadership programmes that challenge the status quo and help re-shape the skills, experiences and competencies that are valued in network leaders. Investing in emerging leaders from across the network, rather than a centralised leader, would also benefit networks and apply a network mindest. 38* *investment is needed in network leadership, and in rethinking what that means, challenging our own assumptions about leadership within a field 40* Pay attention to what is needed to improve governance Programme skills - *Other types of support included specific skills, with advocacy coming up frequently: for example, training or mentoring focused on advocacy, policy and campaigning, strategic litigation.36* Proportionate MEL Keep aspirations in line with income